Simulation Heads for Mainstream Makeover

Two trends are pushing simulation to the forefront of the development effort. Engineering groups are rapidly embracing workflows that move analysis further upstream in the design process, and an array of integrated tools and technologies are making the discipline far more accessible to those outside traditional specialist circles.

Experts say putting analysis capabilities in the hands of mainstream engineers encourages deeper exploration of designs and shrinks the development process, because there are fewer handoffs between engineers and simulation specialists. There is also less of a chance that major issues will go undiscovered until late in the game, when changes are costly.

Simulation is now a mandatory part of Santa Cruz Bicycles' design process for every new mountain bike model. Physical prototyping is reserved for the tail end of development to validate results.

The idea of broadening the use of simulation and making it a requirement throughout the development effort (not just at final verification) is not new, but it's not necessarily well entrenched, either. Hardware has been a big inhibitor; simulation software demands a significant investment in high-performance workstations. The software itself has presented another hurdle. Most computational fluid dynamics and finite element analysis tools are highly sophisticated and have somewhat arcane user interfaces. They require users to be as well versed in the software as they are in simulation-specific tasks like creating meshes and tweaking algorithms -- requirements that fall outside the comfort zone of most mainstream engineers and designers.

"People have wanted to give simulation to non-experts for a long time, but it hasn't worked out that well," Keith Meintjes, practice manager for simulation and analysis at CIMdata, told us. His market research and consulting firm focuses on engineering software and practices.

He and other experts are all for making simulation more accessible to more engineers and designers far earlier in the development cycle. But they caution against doling out the capability to those who without a solid understanding of the core engineering principles the analysis is out to test. "If the user doesn't understand the engineering problem, then you have no hope," Meintjes said. "You can't give these tools to people who don't understand the engineering."

The principal drawback of the first round of mainstream simulation offerings was that most tried "dumbing down" specialist tools for less seasoned users by simplifying the user interface and removing some of the more complex analysis options, he said. Once non-specialists tapped these tools to solve any kind of sophisticated engineering problem, they often made miscalculations and assumptions that led to design snafus, prompting engineering organizations to turn back to the traditional simulation use case.

"We had a false start that we now have to overcome," Meintjes said. "What we need to do is encapsulate the experts’ process, automate it, and simplify it."

Beth, the cost factor is really the main issue. I remember, in the third quarter of the last century of the last millenium, buying the large number crunching computers and analysis software for a spacecraft plant. Of course, simulation of all kinds was done early and often. Money was not much of an issue. On the other hand, the software cost as much as the hardware (almost exactly). And the hardware was much more expensive then.

Making it easier to use is also a big advantage. Even so, the software does not solve the problem for you. It makes it easier to explore more design options and to avoid more prototypes. I have a neighbor, a PhD in Mechanical Engineerin, who was published using one of the major CAE tools. When I asked him about his experience is was somewhat less than enthuastic about it. He did see value in the tool, but the tool does not solve your problem. It still takes time and effort. The tools are just that. They are far superior than not using a tool, but there are still groups that I run into that use their own software for their own model. I see that as a long term risk, but they still do it.

I am intrigued by the cloud model for this. Adapting the algorithms to a cloud environment is a lot of work, but of course you are selling it to a large number of customers. One outcome of that is that the techniques are being used for products like bicycles. In the past, you might have thought that overkill. Not anymore.

Thanks for your input, Naperlou. It is amazing how the cost of the hardware, and hence the software, has come down in price so significantly essentially putting this kind of capability in the hands of the smaller companies like specialty bike manufacturers or sporting goods makers. I completely agree with your comments that the tool can't solve the problem. I think we made it very clear in the piece that you have to understand the engineering problem and the science in order to put these tools to use and get accurate results. Definitely a learned skill set, no doubt.

Great article, Beth. Putting CFD and FEA in the hands of non-specialists is a worthy goal. When I took a couple of classes in FEA in 1976, seasoned engineers would ask me, "What's that?" By now -- 36 years later -- it seems to me we should have been able to find ways to make it accessible to people who have engineering backgrounds, but don't have FEA expertise. Same goes for CFD.

Enjoyed your exploration of the subject Beth. I too see a growing desire among ANSYS customers to drive simulation further up stream in the design process and make simulation tools more accessible to non-specialists. Making the tools easier to use is something that many of us in the industry are focused on, but as Keith points out, it doesn't address all of the challenges. I see a number of best practices emerging in our customer base that both small and large companies can benefit from:

Documenting simulation best practices for specific points in the design process (and for specific products)

Automating simulation workflow – either with off the shelf tools, or through customization to include these best practices

Instituting internal certification and training programs specific to these best practices

@Gregfallon: Thanks so much for those great suggestions. All really good stuff. It definitely puts into perspective that even if the tools are becoming easier to manuveur, this is still hard stuff and new policies, training, and workflows are essential for managing and coordinating simulation initiatives as they move from isolated one-off studies to a more concerted, enterprise effort.

I recently heard a story from a test Engineer. When he failed a design in the lab, the design Engineers told him that his test setup was wrong. He challenged them on that, and they responded, "It has to be wrong, the design passed simulation."

Simulation is a great tool, but its users must understand that it is an approximation. The real world is far more complex, and often takes a design outside what the simulation can handle. The best the simulation can do is detect some of the flaws early. It will never replace thorough testing. It is just another way of improving the odds that the design will pass.

Finally, let's be clear on this "cloud computing" thing. "The Cloud" has been used as a catch phrase to cover a wide variety of Internet enabled processes. In this case, they are talking about a company providing high-performance computing services. It is really no different than what was done 20 years ago, except that a clever web-based interface means that you can submit your design directly to the computer through the Internet, instead of sending a file to a "Customer Support Engineer" who would translate it and run it through the computer when your reserved slot became available.

A convenient step forward, no doubt. But hardly the radical paradigm shift that it is being hyped as.

Virtual Reality (VR) headsets are getting ready to explode onto the market and it appears all the heavy tech companies are trying to out-develop one another with better features than their competition. Fledgling start-up Vrvana has joined the fray.

A Tokyo company, Miraisens Inc., has unveiled a device that allows users to move virtual 3D objects around and "feel" them via a vibration sensor. The device has many applications within the gaming, medical, and 3D-printing industries.

While every company might have their own solution for PLM, Aras Innovator 10 intends to make PLM easier for all company sizes through its customization. The program is also not resource intensive, which allows it to be appropriated for any use. Some have even linked it to the Raspberry Pi.

solidThinking updated its Inspire program with a multitude of features to expedite the conception and prototype process. The latest version lets users blend design with engineering and manufacturing constraints to produce the cheapest, most efficient design before production.

Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.